[5B. Update from the City Council and Management: Financial Position, Major Projects, Operational Issues, Upcoming Dates of Interest and Items of Community Interest.]

[00:05:32]

(APPLAUSE) .

>> . >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU Y'ALL FOR BEING HERE. OUR NEXT ITEM IS 5 B, UP DATE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT, FINANCIAL POSITION, MAJOR PROJECTS, OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST AND ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST AND MAKING THOSE ANNOUNCEMENT IS

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

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER, YOU HAVE

AN ANNOUNCEMENT? >> YES.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SORRY. >> YES. USUALLY WE HAVE A SPECIAL FEATURED ANIMAL THAT WE, UM, TALK ABOUT AT THIS TIME, BUT, TONIGHT, INSTEAD, WE'RE GOING TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE ANIMAL SHELTER IS CODE RED RIGHT NOW. AND ALL OF THESE ANIMALS ARE IN NEED OF NEW FOREVER HOMES. THE ANIMAL SHELTERS CANINE PENS ARE COMPLETELY FULL. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO FIND THESE BABIES NEW HOMES. THESE ARE SOME OF THE DOGS WAITING THERE FOR YOU. AND IF YOU ARE MORE OF A CAT PERSON INSTEAD OF A DOG PERSON WE HAVE SEVERAL KITTIES AVAILABLE. REMEMBER, ALL THE ADOPTIONS INCLUDE SPAY AND NEWT TERRE, MY DRAY CHIP AND UP-TO-DATE VACCINATIONS. CONTACT THE ANIMAL SHELTERTA MAKE A NEW ADDITION TO YOUR FOREVER FAMILY. DUCK TEAM SIX IS MATCHING DONATIONS THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, UP TO $10,000.

SO, HERE'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOUR DONATION GO FURTHER. CONTACT THE ANIMAL SHELTER OR VISIT THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE FOR MORE DETAILS. AND I ALSO HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. UM, DO YOU LOVE COFFEE? I LOVE COFFEE. I NEED COFFEE TO WAKE ME UP IN THE MORNING. I ALSO LOVE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WELL, YOU CAN COMBINE THE TWO AND HAVE COFFEE WITH COPS ON DECEMBER 13TH AT PANERA BREAD FROM 7:30 TO 9:30 I KNOW IT'S HARD TO GET UP THAT EARLY, BUT, IT WILL BE WORTH IT. AND LIGHT UP ROWLETT IS BEING HELPED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE VOTING OPENS DECEMBER 8TH THROUGH THE 13TH VISIT ROWLETT.COM TO VOTE ON YOUR FAVORITE CHRISTMAS

LIGHTS. THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL, ANY OTHER COUNTS?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET? >> THERE'S 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS GOING ON FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION. I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON THAT EVENING AND LOTS OF ACTIVITIES, BUT, THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT HAS A LINK TO THEIR PAGE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE FEED BACK, LET US KNOW HOW WE

DID. THAT YOU CAN. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL, ANY

OTHER COMMENTS OR UPDATES? >> COMMISSIONER GRUBISICH?

>> YES. SO, MIKE BRITTON, UM, REMINDED ME, CITY OF ROWLETT HAD TWO TABLES AT THIS YEAR'S GARLAND ISD FOUNDATIONS TIN SILL AND TRIVIA, WHICH IS A FANTASTIC FUNDRAISING EVENT THAT BENEFITS GARLAND ISD AND THAT'S BEEN THIS EVENT'S BEEN HELD FOUR YEARS, TWO YEARS THEY TOOK OFF BECAUSE OF COVID, AND THREE OUT OF THE FOUR YEARS, INCLUDING LAST FRIDAY NIGHT, ROWLETT WAS THE SMRTEST CITY. BEATING OUT GARLAND AND SACHSE. GOOD JOB,

COUNCIL MEMBERS. >> I WANT TO SAY THAT, ALL,

[00:10:01]

LIKE ROWLETT BUSINESSES WON ALL THREE CATEGORIES. SO, ALL THREE CATEGORIES FOR ROWLETT BUSINESSES AND ROWLETT IS THE SMARTEST CITY. WE TOOK HOME ALL THE PRIZES. THANK YOU, ANY

[6. CITIZENS’ INPUT]

OTHER COMMENTS? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT.

OUR NEXT ITEM IS CITIZENS' INPUT. AT THIS TIME, COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL DURING CITIZENS' INPUT. DO WE HAVE ANY

COMMENTS? >> WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL NOT WANTING TO SPEAK AN AN ITEM ON THE SPECIFIC AGENDA. SO, DANNY

HILL, IF YOU'D COME UP. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD. YOU CAN COME UP.

>> HELLO, EVERYONE, THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME, AND, UM, I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO GO THREE MINUTES, I WANT TO BE BRIEF AND FIST I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I'M DANNY HILL, 4218 SCOTT DRIVE AND MY FAMILY AND I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE 2018. WE LOVE THE CITY OF ROWLETT. THANK YOU FORR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HIRING A COMPANY TO ASSESS THE STREETS AND DO AN CONDITION INDEX, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD MOVE. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR E-MAIL AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SEND THAT TO ME. UM, I AM PLEASED ON A FEW THINGS, I'M PLEASED THAT WE HAD AN OVERALL RATING OF 69 IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, THAT'S GREAT NEWS, RIGHT? BUT, I ALSO WANT KNOW FUNDING IS AN ISSUE AND I WAS ESPECIALLY DISHEARTENED TO HEAR THAT MY STREET WAS OHHEN A POOR CONDITION LIST. ALTHOUGH, 69 IS GOOD ARE FOR THE CITY, AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THAT, I HAVE TO DRIVE DOWN A STREET THAT'S POOR.

I UNDERSTAND FUNDING IS AN ISSUE AND WE HAVE A STREET THAT'S BEYOND JUST THROWING DOWN SOME TAR, IT'S DISHEARTENING BECAUSE I ALSO SEE THAT WE'VE GOT SOME ISSUES COMING UP WITH TRYING TO DO THE BUDGET, MAY BE A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE WE THINK ABOUT DOING SCOTT DRIVE OR THE OTHERS. IF I'M WRONG ON THAT, LET ME KNOW. BUT, IT'S TOUGH WHEN YOU KNOW THAT YOU FALL ON A STREET LIKE THAT AND YOU MAY BE NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO REPAIR. SO, I'M SOLUTION-DRIVEN, I DON'T EXPECT TO SHOW UP AT A COUNCIL MEETING AND THE NEXT DAY PEOPLE ARE SHOVING TAR AND TEARING STREETS UP AND REDOING IT, HOWEVER, THIS STREET'S BEEN DEGRADING FOR YEARS AND I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW TO YOUR ATTENTION, OF WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I WOULD LOVE IF SOMEONE FROM THE CITY WOULD COME OUT. I WATCHED THE MEETING THAT YOU GUYS DID AND COURTESY OF ANGELA, THANK YOU FOR SENDING THAT. THE SIDEWALKS, THEY HOLD WATER, THE WATER DOESN'T GET TO THE DRAINS, THERE'S PILES OF TAR, ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, WE ALL DRIVE ON THE STREET LIKE THIS. AND THE WHOLE STREET IS NOT BAD. SO, WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS ALTHOUGH WE'RE A STREET ON THE POOR CONDITION, WHICH LEANS TOWARD TEARING UP AND REDOING IT, MAY BE WE COULD LOOK AT THOSE AREAS WHICH ARE REALLY BAD WHERE WE HAVE TO DODGE AND DO SOMETHING IN BETWEEN. THAT IS MY PLEAD TO YOU RESPECTFULLY, THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO AND I HOPE THAT

YOU CONSIDER MY REQUEST. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER COMMENT CARDS FOR CITIZENS' INPUT?

>> ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. I'M SORRY, COUNCIL RECEIVED HOW MANY PUBLIC INPUT CARDS? WE RECEIVED NINE REGARDING ITEM 7E. MOST OF THEM WERE ALL OF THEM WERE IN FAVOR

OF THE ITEM. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: PUBLIC INPUT. THE ONLINE PUBLIC INPUT FORM, NOT CITIZENS' INPUT. ALL

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

RIGHT. OKAY. SO, UM, OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, THESE ITEMS WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. COUNCIL PULLED ITEM 7E FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. DOES ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE WISH TO PULL ANY ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION. SEEING NONE, STACY, PLEASE READ THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS INTO THE

RECORD? >> 7A, CONSIDER APPROVING THE

MINUTES. >> 7B, CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR A CITY MANAGER EXECUTIVE SEARCH?

>> 7C CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FIRE

[00:15:06]

DEPARTMENT UNIFORMS. >> 7D, CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING THE RENEWAL OF MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.

>> 7F, CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A TASK AUTHORIZATION FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN WORK WITH LEE

ENGINEERING, LLC. >> 7G, CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A TASK AUTHORIZATION FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN WORK WITH CPNY INCORPORATED. .

>> 7H, CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A TASK AUTHORIZATION FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN WORK WITH

GRANTHAM AND ASSOCIATES. >> 7I, CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A TASK AUTHORIZATION FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN WORK WITH HUITT-SO WILL, LARS

INCORPORATED. >> 7J CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR LEADERSHIP TEAM DEVELOPMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY PLANNING FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

>> 7K, CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE POLICE FLEET CAMERAS, AND 7L CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING

THE ANNEXATION OF VINSON ROAD. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DO WE HAVE A

MOTION? >> COUNCILMEMBER GALUARDI?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ.

>> DEPARTMENT PRO TEM SHINDER? >> I SECOND.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GALUARDI AND SECONDED BY DEPUTY PRO TEM SHINDER. ANY P COMMENTS OR

[7E. Consider action redesignating a portion of the Take Area as leasable property. Consider action to approve a resolution redesignating the northern portion of Lakeside Park North within the take area as leasable property; providing that subleases of the area are subject to retake by the City of Rowlett at such time as plans for the development of Lakeside Park North are established.]

QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS 7E. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.

CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION REDESIGNING THE NORTHERN PORTION OF LAKESIDE PARK NORTH WITHIN THE TAKE AREA AS LEASABLE PROPERTY PROVIDING THAT SUBLEASES OF THE AREA ARE SUBJECT TO RETAKE BY THE CITY OF ROWLETT AT SUCH TIME AS PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAKESIDE PARK NORTH ARE ESTABLISHED.

>> I HAVE TALKED WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY THIS AND SOME CITIZENS WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM IN GENERAL WHO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT A MINOR PART OF THE WORDING, WELL, IT'S NOT THAT MINOR, BUT, IT'S ONE WORD, ACTUALLY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ADDED TO THE RESOLUTION. UM, IN SECTION THREE, LET'S SEE, I MEAN, LET ME FIND IT. IN THE EVENT THAT PLANS TO DOVE LAKESIDE PARK NORTH ARE ESTABLISHEDND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE WOULD LIKE FOR THAT IN KEEPING WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT THE COUNCIL HAD WHEN WE HAD THE WORK SESSION ABOUT THE SIGN UP AND WE WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO BE APPROVED AND FUNDING IS APPROVED AND IS IN PLACE RATHER THAN JUST THE COUNCIL VOTES TO APPROVE DEVELOPING THAT PART OF THE PARK. WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE SUBLEASE WOULD NOT BE TERMINATED UNTIL THE FUNDS WAS IN PLACE.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I FOR GOT, WE HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM, RIGHT? WE HAVE COMMENT CARDS? SO, DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT NOW BEFORE COUNCIL GETS DEEPER INTO DISCUSSION. SO, GO AHEAD, STACY.

>> THESE ARE IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WERE RECEIVED.

RICHARD COAL, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY IN WHICH YOU

RESIDE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YOU HAVE

THREE MINUTES, SIR. >> RICHARD COLE, ROWLETT.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO MAKE THREE POINTS. FIRST, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE PARKS'S ADVISORY BOARD WAS NOT BEEN FORMERLY CONSULTED IN THIS MATTER THAT OBVIOUSLY DIRECTLY AFFECTS PARKS. NUMBERTWO, COUNCIL SHOULD MOVE CAREFULLY IN THE DIRECTION OF DEPARKING A PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED VERY CLEARLY IN THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN AND IS ONE OF

[00:20:03]

THE LAST LAKE FRONT PROPERTIES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. IF EVEN LEGAL TO DO THIS, IT MAY PROVE TO BE VERY HARD TO UNDO IN THE FUTURE ONCE RESIDENTS MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THESE PROPERTIES. THREE, IN CONCLUSION, IF THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE IS MISSCHIEF IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, LET'S PROVIDE THE PROPERTY TOOLS TO ENFORCE OF THE RULES IN THE PARK JUST LIKE WE WOULD IN THE COMMUNITY OF HERFORD PARK.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ALISSA BOWERERS. STATE THE NAME AND

CITY IN WHICH YOU RESIDE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU,

YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES. >> I'M LISA BOWERS AND I'M A RESIDENT OF ROWLETT, TEXAS. I GREW UP IN THIS CITY, I GRADUATED FROM ROCKWALL HIGH SCHOOL AND I MOVED BOOK TO ROWLETT IN 2012, SO I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 10 YEARS. I, UM, WANT TO TO REMIND SOME OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND INFORM COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT IN 2018, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT ONE OF THE POINTS OF THAT PLAN WAS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR CITY RESIDENTS. THE FIRST GOAL OF THAT PLAN WAS TO SEEK AND IMPLEMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKE RAY HUBBARD. TONIGHT, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THAT PLAN THAT WAS CREATED BY AN 11-MEMBER STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE, MULTIPLE COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUPS AND ONLINE SURVEY, AND TWO OPEN COMMUNITY MEETINGS. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AGAINST THIS AGENDA ITEM.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> WE HAVE THREE ADDITIONAL. NEXT IS DAVID HALL, WOULD YOU COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND THE CITY IN WHICH YOU RESIDE?

>> DAVID HOLL, ROWLETT, I PROBABLY SPEND MORE TIME ON THE LAKE IN A KAYAK WITH CUSTOMERS AND PEOPLE ENJOYING THE LAKE FROM THE VIEW OF A KAYAK. THE TAKELINE OF THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A VERY NARROW AREA, IT'S NOT LIKE A CORPSE OF ENGINEERS LAKES WHERE THEY HAVE A LARGE AREA TO FACILITATE FEATURES, CAMP GROUNDS AND DOCKS, ITEMS LIKE THAT. THIS IS VERY RESTRICTED WITH WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT. I FEEL THE BEST USE, AND I THINK AS WE SPEND MORE TIME DEVELOPING A MORE CREDIBLE PLAN FOR THE USE OF THE LAKE, BRINGING THE QUALITY OF LIFE TO EVERYBODY, WE'LL FIND THAT THE TAKE LINE IS BETTER MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED BY THE RESIDENTS. IN ADDITION, I FEEL THE WELL, I SUPPORT THIS ITEM AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL VOTE FOR

IT. THAT YOU CAN. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LOGAN ADUDLE.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES SIR, STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD.

>> COOL. LOGAN ADUDLE 4021 CHIESA ROAD. SPOKEN UP HERE QUITE A FEW TIMES AND I WANT TO REITERATE A FEW THINGS. WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I DID ALL THE RESEARCH, CONTACTED DALLAS AND ROWLETT, WE'VE GONE OVER THIS BEFORE. UM, EVERYBODY SAID THAT EVERYTHING WAS GOOD, THEY TOLD ME YOU KNOW WHAT I WOULD NEED DO TO DO THE LEASE BACK. THEY SAID I WAS ABLE TO DO THE LEASE BACK AND I WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR A SURVEY AND THAT I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING IN EROSION CONTROL. I ALREADY PAID FOR THE SURVEY, $1,500 OUT OF POCKET WHICH IS A PAPER WEIGHT ON MY DESK NOW. I'VE GOTTEN A QUOTE FOR EROSION CONTROL TO GET INSTALLED. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT, I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE NO TRAILS BEHIND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WHAT I AGREED UPON. SO, CONFLICTS, I GUESS, WOULD BE HOW WOULD WE END UP PUTTING A PARK BACK THERE IF WE ALL AGREED THERE'S NO TRAILS. I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSIONS ON THAT.

[00:25:02]

UM, BUT, I ALSO AGREE WITH THE FUNDED PORTION, MAKING SURE THAT THE FUNDING IS IN PLACE AND ALSO IN THAT INCLUDING THAT VAPIDING IS THE FUNDING FOR POLICE VEHICLES, BECAUSE THERE'S NO ACCESS FOR POLICE TO GET BACK THERE RIGHT NOW. SO, IF, THE FUNDING IS THERE FOR THE PARK IN THE FUTURE, BUT POLICE STILL HAVE NO ACCESS, NOW YOU'RE LETTING A LOT MORE PEOPLE COME BEHIND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND N WAY FOR THE POLICE TO GET BACK THERE TO, YOU KNOW, MANAGE IT. AS FAR AS THE OTHER SAFETY CONCERNS THAT WE HAD, THE GUNFIRE ERUPTING AT TWO OR 3:00 IN THE MORNING. FIREPITS LITTERING UNDERNEATH THE TREE LINE. AND AGAIN, THE LACK OF POLICE ACCESS AND RESPONSE TIME.

TRASH. UM, WE WENT BACK THERE AFTER PARKS CLEANED UP THE AREA AND IT'S ALREADY TRASH HANGING FROM TREES, PILED UP UNDER TREES, BOTTLES EVERYWHERE. VEHICLES DRIVING, THEY'RE HOPPING THE CURB UP THERE DRIVING DOWN INTO THE LAKE BOTTOM THERE TO FISH. AND CAN, OF COURSE, WE HAVE SECURITY CONCERNS. VANDALISM, TRESPASSING, THIEVES, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING WE HAD ANOTHER PERSON AND JUMPED OUR BACK FENCE AND STOOD AT OUR KITCHEN WINDOW BRIEFLY. SO, SECURITY IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE. AND I THINK THROWING ANY SORT OF TRAIL SYSTEM OR PARK BACK THERE IS JUST GOING TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WE'RE HAVING TO IT DEAL WITH. THANK

YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU.

>> ZACH FISHER. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY OF

RESIDENCE? >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> YES, I LIVE AT 4001 CHIESA ROAD, WHICH, MY FAMILY OWNS THREE ACRES OF PROPERTY, AND WE WOULD LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEASE BACK THE AQERRAGE BEHIND THERE. IT'S A FUNNY STORY, BECAUSE MY PARENTS GREW UP IN ROWLETT, I GREW UP HERE AND MY GRAND PARENTS HAVE GREW UP HERE. WE'VE BEEN IN THAT AREA A LONG TIME. WHAT I SEE WHEN I GO DOWN TO THE AREA DESIGNATED AS A PARK NOW IS A SEA OF BEER BOTTLES, BEER CANS AND ALL KINDS OF ALCOHOLIC BOTTLES, IT'S TRASHED ALL THE TIME. THERE'S AN AREA BACK THERE WERE YOU HAVE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE DUMPING AND IT'S A MESS. IF IT'S NOT BEING MAINTAINED NOW, AND THERE'S NOT PUBLIC ACCESS BECAUSE ALL OF THE LAND SURROUNDING THAT AREA IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, HOW WOULD WE EXPECT THAT TO CHANGE IF YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE MORE AREA BEHIND OUR HOMES AND TURN IT INTO A PARK? IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME SITUATION. I HAVE PEOPLE SET UP IN MY FRONT YARD AND DECIDED TO HAVE A PICNIC.

IT'S EVERY COUPLE OF DAYS I HAVE PEOPLE TRESPASSING ON MY PROPERTY COMING FROM THAT AREA. I WOULD LOVE FOR THAT AREA TO BE A PARK AND FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS AND FOR THEM TO HAVE A GOOD TIME, BUT, MAN, IT'S GOT TO BE DONE RIGHT. AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE THE POLICE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT PROPERTY AND MAKE IT LOOK GOOD. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, WHAT'S HAPPENED DOWN THERE RIGHT NOW, HAS CREATED AN UNSAFE SITUATION.

IT'S HURTING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.

AND THAT'S NOT FAIR TO US. THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. AND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT NEED TO CLEAN IT UP. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. UM, STAFF? ALL RIGHT. FIRST UP, I WANT TO SINCERELY APOLOGIZE TO THE PARKS AND RECRRECREATION ADVISORY BOA WE SHOULD HAVE PUSHED IT TO Y'ALL AND HAD Y'ALL PROVIDE INPUT FOR THE COUNCIL. I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT. I SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED TO DO THAT, I REALLY APOLOGIZE. SO, WITH THAT, COUNCIL, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?

>> >> I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE OF DE-PARKING. WE ARE NOT DE-PARKING THE LAND. WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS TO ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO TEMPORARILY SUB-LEASE THE LAND THAT'S NOT BEING USED NOT BEING MAINTAINED BY THE CITY AS A PARK FOR WHATEVER PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL THE CITY DOES HAVE FUNDING IN PLACE AND CONCRETE PLANS TO DEVELOP A PARK THERE. WE'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THE DE-PARKING

[00:30:05]

PROCESS. AS WE HAVE SAID, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A PARK THERE, BUT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND PROBABLY NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING FOR WHITE QUO AWHILE. WE HAVE OTHER PARKS IN THE CITY THAT REALLY REALLY NEED OUR FUNDING, AND UM, I DON'T SEE THAT BEING DEVELOPED ANY TIME IN THE VERY NEAR FTURE, IN THE MEANTIME, THE CITY COULD BE GETTING THOSE SUBLEASE FEES, THEY COULD BE GETTING THE EROSION CONTROL PUT IN AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND GET THE LAND MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND I THINK THAT'S A

WIN/WIN SITUATION. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL

MEMBER BRITTON? >> I'M GOING TO TAG ONTO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER SHINDER SAID, I'M GOING TO MENTION THE DE-PARKING.

I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS, WHETHER YOU'RE FOR OR AGAINST IT, BUT, WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT OF DE-PARKING, I BELIEVE ALL OF THE RESIDENTS THERE UNDERSTAND THE STIPULATION BEING IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEASE THAT BACK, THERE COULD COME A TIME WHEN THE CITY DOES APPROVE AND FUND THAT PARK THAT THEY WOULD LOSE THAT LEASE AND I THINK THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT AND ACCEPT THAT. I ALONG WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WINGET WAS ABLE TO WALK THAT LAST WEEK, AND, IT'S PRETTY ATROCIOUS DOWN THERE WITH ALL THE TRASH, THE BEER CANS, THE FIRE PITS AN EVERYTHING ELSE. AND THERE'S NO WAY TO CONTROL THAT. NOT TO MENTION, JUST, THE, I CONSIDER THE ENORMOUS EROSION OF THE SHORELINE THAT'S REALLY GOING UNA-ADDRESSED AS WELL. LIKE, I SAID, I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS AND RESPECT YOUR OPINION, WHETHER YOU ARE FOR OR AGAINST IT, BUT I'M IN

SUPPORT OF THIS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL

MEMBER GRUBISICH? >> YOU DON'T NEED A LEASE AGREEMENT TO CLEAN UP BEHIND YOUR PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> DALLAS WATER UTILITIES TODAY AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A LEASE ADPREEMEGREEMENT TO PUT I WALL. THE ONLY REASON YOU NEED A LEASE AGREEMENT IS IF YOU WANTED TO PUT IN ON-WATER STRUCTURES. SO, TO ME, THIS SETS US UP FOR A BIG ISSUE.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DE-PARKING THIS LAND. SO, FROM EVERYTHING THAT I'VE HEARD, YOU COULD ALREADY DO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU SAY YOU WANT TO DO. THE ONLY THING ADDITIONALLY THAT YOU COULD DO WITH AN IOA IS PUT IN ON-WATER STRUCTURES LIKE A BOAT RAMP. I WOULD BE VERY SERIOUSLY CONCERNED IF WE PUT INTO ANY AGREEMENT THAT THEN GAVE SOMEBODY A SENSE THAT THEY COULD PUT IN AND SPEND MONEY ON A PROPERTY TO INSTALL EQUIPMENT WITH THIS PROVISION IN HERE THINKING THAT MAY BE THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO FUND THIS. THAT IS JUST BAD MANAGEMENT ON OUR PART AS A CITY. SO, HOW I READ THE TEA LEAVES HERE, IS YOU COULD ALREADY DO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO DO THERE, EXCEPT FOR BUILDING A BOAT RAMP. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF DE-PARKING THIS PROPERTY. THE OTHER AREAS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS NOT PARKLAND. AND I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ANYBODY BUILDING A BOAT DOCK ON CITY PROPERTY, SO, I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THIS PARTICULAR

ORDINANCE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER BELL?

>> I AGREE WITH EXCUSE ME, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER GRUBISICH, BECAUSE, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE WITH ANOTHER PERSON ABOUT A CONTRACT AND WE HAD TO GO THROUGH AND DO THE SAME THING.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS AT ALL. BECAUSE, I'M NOT GOING TO DE-PARK, OR GIVE SOMEONE PERMISSION TO SAY THEY COULD DO CERTAIN THINGS AND THEN COME BACK ON US WHEN IT'S TIME FOR US TO COME BACK AND SAY WE NEED THIS BACK. THE CITY, WE NEED IT BACK, THEN, THEY'RE GOING TO CONSULT THE ATTORNEYS AND MAY CHARGE TO HAVE US PAY MONEY, YOU COULD JUST GO AHEAD AND DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO BUT DON'T PUT ANYTHING ON THE CITY PROPERTY.

DON'T PUT YOUR BOAT RAMP OUT THERE. YOU COULD CLEAN IT UP.

WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. DO WHAT YOU WANT TO, IT'S IN THE BACK OF YOUR'S, THAT'S JUST ME. I DO NOT SUPPORT IT.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON? >> YEAH, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN GRUBISICH AND WHAT HE SAID, HOWEVER, THE OWNERS HERE ARE NOT WAITING FOR THE TAKE LEASE BACK TO BE APPROVED TO CLEAN IT UP. THEY'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME OUT THERE ALREADY CLEANING IT UP, NOT JUST TIME BUT ALSO MONEY IN TRYING TO KEEP

[00:35:04]

ABREAST IF YOU WILL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE JUST TO TRY AND GET AHEAD OF IT, BUT, THEY'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY OUT THERE TRYING TO CLEAN IT UP.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET.

>> I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CLEANING UP THE LAND, HAVING BEEN DOWN THERE AND WALKING FROM LOGAN'S PROPERTY SOUTH, BASICALLY ALMOST TO THE TRAIN TRACKS, THERE'S SOME AREAS THAT ARE FAIRLY BARE, NO TREES AND THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHICH ARE VERY, VERY, WOODED. SO, WOULD A RESIDENT BE ABLE TO CLEAR TREES FROM A PROPERTY? WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO INSTALL EROSION CONTROL?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IT'S MY FAULT. GO AHEAD.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AND I WAS GOING TO INTERRUPT AT SOME POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A QUALIFICATION TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH SAID. WE HAVE A QUALIFICATION OF CLEARING TREES AND CLEAR CUTTING TAKE AREA PROPERTIES. AND WE'VE HAD THAT PROBLEM A COUPLE OF TIMES WHERE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WENT IN THERE AND CLEARED TREES OUT. COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME WAS TO INVESTIGATE FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT. AND I THINK MATT'S CORRECT, A SUBLEASE DOESN'T GIVE YOU MUCH MORE THAN THE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT BOAT HOUSES, BUT, I GUESS FROM A PROPERTY OWNER'S PERSPECTIVE GIVES THEM A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE REAL ESTATE. WE HAVE PERMITTED SEA WALLS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ON PROPERTIES BUILT AND PAID FOR BY HOME OWNERS WHO DID NOT HAVE A SUBLEASE WITH THE CITY. I BELIEVE THAT OUR BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT WILL CERTAINLY GRANT A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SEAWALL AND THE CITY OF DALLAS WOULD HAVE NO OXES TO IT, I'M SURE, EVEN IF THE PROPERTY DID NOT HAVE A SUBLEASE WITH THE CITY. BUT, CLEAR CUTTING TREES AND VEGETATION, MAY BE A HUGE PROBLEM IF THERE'S NO SEA WALL OR EROSION CONTROLS PUT IN PLACE.

>> AND JUST TO CLARIFY, EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE A SUBLEASE, YOU STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY CITY OF ROWLETT TREE ORDINANCE. SO, IF YOU HAD A SUBLEASE, YOU STILL COULDN'T GO IN AND CLEAR CUT.

IT'S MINOR VEGETATION REMOVAL IS HOW IT READS. SO, YOU COULD CUT DOWN TALL GRASS, PRUNE THINGS UP, EVEN IF YOU HAD A SUBLEASE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THEY COULD GO IN INTEREST AND DO THOSE

ACTIVITIES NOW. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, IN THE WORK SESSION WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS, I FELT LIKE WE CAME OUT WITH A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND APPROACH.

>> IN THE WORK SESSION I WAS NEVER IN FAVOR OF THIS, IN THE WORK SESSION I WAS OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE OF THE VERY REASON THAT COUNCILMEMBER BELL BROUGHT UP. WE HAVE MADE THESE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS IN THE PAST AND, THEY COME BACK AND ROOST AND WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE FUNDING AVAILABLE. AND WE DON'T KNOW, AND AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE POINT OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT ONLY GIVES THE EXTRA RIGHT THAT IT GIVES THEM IS THE ABILITY TO BUILD ON WATER BOAT DOCKS. THIS IS PARKLAND, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DE-PARK IT, AT LEAST THAT'S THE SENTIMENT THAT I'M HEARING, THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A REFERENDUM TO THE CITY ANYWAY FOR US TO DE-PARK LAND. THAT'S ALL IT'S GIVING THEM. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO GO ON THERE AND FOLLOW THE SAME RULES THEY WOULD IF THEY HAD A LEASE AGREEMENT TO MANAGE THAT PROPERTY. HANDS DOWN. SO, ALL IT'S GIVING THEM IS THE ABILITY TO BUILD SOMETHING AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FROM US TO BUILD IT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM A PERMIT TO BUILD ON PARKS PROPERTY. SO

WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE TO DO THIS? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS:

COUNCILMEMBER GALUARDI? >> I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS VERY HARD, I DON'T DO NOT AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH ON THIS ONE. WE'RE NOT DE-PARKING AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE AGREEMENT IS AND THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAD WITH THE OTHER AGREEMENT I DON'T THINK THAT IS PERTINENT TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN CAREFUL IN CRAFTING THE LANGUAGE AND HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LANDOWNERS AROUND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IT IF IN FACT THE CITY DECIDES TO DESIGN, FUND, AND APPROVE A PARK IN THIS AREA. I HAVE NO CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESIDENTS BUILDING A BOAT DOCK AND HAVING THAT BOAT DOCK EXIST EVEN AFTER THE CITY TAKES AND USES THIS LAND AS A PARK. I'VE SEEN INSTANCES OF THAT

[00:40:03]

ARRANGEMENT THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY, ALL IT REQUIRES IS A SMALL FENCE AND LOCK ON THAT DOCK WHICH YOU SEE ALL OVER IN RECREATIONAL AREAS, SO, I HAVE NO CONCERN THERE. THE OTHER THING THAT THIS LEASE BACK DOES ALLOW THESE OWNERS TO DO IS ACTUALLY MOVE THEIR FENCE LINE DOWN WHICH PROVIDES THEM MORE SECURITY. BUT, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO ME IN THIS CASE IS THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY EXCEPT ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY. THAT MEANS WE DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS AND THE TOOLS, UNLESS WE START TO PUT POLICE IN BOATS ON-SHORE TO BE ABLE TO POLICE THIS PROPERTY. AND IT'S OBVIOUS IT'S NOT BEING

POLICED. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT YOU COULD MAKE ACCESS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, CAN'TER BURY

COVE THROUGH THE STREET THERE. >> IS THERE AN EASEMENT IN

PLACE? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I DON'T KNOW

THE ANSWER. >> OR ARE WE JUST USING IT?

>> THE INTENT IS TO KENT A TRAIL THROUGH THE TAKE LINE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WILL TIE INTO, MY LATEST UNDERSTANDING AND HE WAS AT ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, IT WILL TIE INTO HIS PUBLIC STREET NETWORK AND THAT WE CAN ACCESS IT THROUGH THERE. FROM CANTBURY COVE?

>> YES. >> THE OTHER ASPECT AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE IS THAT THERE IS A LACK OF FUNDING FOR EXISTING PARKS. AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION IN THE PARK'S BOARD. WE HAVE MANY, MANY, NEEDS IRRIGATION BEING ONE OF THEM. I, MYSELF, WANT TO SEE AN UPDATE TO THE MASTER PARK'S PAN THAT FOCUSES US IN ON MORE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS. WE HAD CONVERSATIONS IN COUNSEL TODAY ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE NEAR-TERM. THE IMPROVEMENTS OF ALL OF THE TAKE LEASE PROPERTY GO BACK TO THE OWNER WHEN THIS LEASE EXPIRES IN 20 YEARS AND WE'VE DONE NOTHING WITH THIS PROPERTY IN 22 YEARS. WHAT'S MORE, AND I'VE HEARD FROM MR. FISHER TONIGHT, I BELIEVE HIS FAMILY OWNED THAT PROPERTY BEFORE THE CITY CAME ALONG AND EFFECTIVELY TOOK THAT PROPERTY BY DESIGNATING IT AS A PARK IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND I'M SURE HE RECEIVED NO COMPENSATION FOR THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT THAT WRONG AS WELL. THE OTHER FACTOR IN THIS IS THERE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE ENTIRE SECTION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FIVE ACRES TO THE SOUTH AND MR. FISHER'S PROPERTY AND FIVE ACRES TO THE NORTH ALL OF WHOM COULD DEVELOP AND IN FACT THERE ARE PLANS TO DEVELOP INTO THE KIND OF HOUSING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THIS CITY.

THAT SUPPORTS THAT QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE ALL WANT. I HAVE NO CONCERN AS I SAID ABOUT BEING ABLE TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY BACK.

I HAVE FAITH THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS WRITTEN A RESOLUTION SUCH THAT WE COULD DO THAT. AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THEY UNDERSTAN AMEANABLE TO THAT AS A MEANS TO SECURE THEIR RESIDENCE. SO, I

WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY.

COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH? >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THE ONLY POINT IS THESE LEASES ARE TRANSFERRABLE BY DEED AND YOU'VE TALKED TO THESE LANDOWNERS, BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHO THE NEXT LANDOWNERS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE MONEY FOR IT, IT'S A NEW HOME OWNER AND NOW WEAR ASKING THEM TO TAKE STUFF OUT BECAUSE THAT'S BAD CITY MANAGEMENT THAT COULD LEAD TO ISSUES WITH THIS CITY IN LITIGATION LATER DOWN THE ROAD.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER?

>> YES, TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF GIVING THEM SOMETHING AND THEN COMING BACK AND TELLING THEM THAT YOU ARE TAKING IT BACK, ALL OF THE HOME OWNERS ON THE LAKE WITH SUBLEASES HAVE THAT SITUATION. THAT'S THE SAME SITUATION EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS THAT WE ALL KNEW GOING IN, IF YOU BUILD A BOAT HOUSE OR EROSION WALL, AT THE END OF THAT SUBLEASE, IT BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AGAIN. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ACCEPT AND SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT THE HOMEOWNERS THAT IF THE CITY HAS THE FUNDING TO BUILD A PARK THEN THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. SO, I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE.

>> WE'VE ALL, OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU CAN TELL THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT THIS ITEM. AND, IN THE, I WISH WE HAD THE PICTURE THAT WE HAD IN THE WORK SESSION HERE BECAUSE THAT SPEAKS A THOUSAND WORDS. THE LENGTH OF THIS PROPERTY, HALF OF IT IS BEHIND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE NORTH HALF OF IT, THERE'S NO EGRESS OUT OF IT. SO, IF YOU WERE GOING TO PUT IN A TRAIL THAT WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE NORTH HALF OF THE PROPERTY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KIND OF CREATE A LOOP AROUND BACK TO THE TRAIL TO

[00:45:03]

GO BACK DOWN WHERE YOU CAME FROM, THERE'S NO WAY TO GET OUT.

SO, WE KNOW THAT CANTBURY COVE IS CONSTRUCTING A TRAIL ON THE SOUTH HALF OF THE PROPERTY, THE NORTH HALF WOULD END UP BEING OUR RESPONSIBILITY SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE IF COUNCIL DECIDED TO FUND THAT AS A PRIORITY. I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING IN THE NEAR-TERM FUTURE AT ALL. WITH THAT, UM, I THINK THAT THIS WAS A RELATIVELY GOOD COMPROMISE. THAT IT WASN'T SAYING WE'RE DE-PARKING THIS AND WE'RE GIVING IT TO YOU, AND IT'S YOUR'STA TAKE AND WE'LL NEVER SEE IT AGAIN. I DO ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE COMMENTS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH AND BELL. I THINK THIS IS NOT IT'S NOT A TAKE ALL OR NOTHING, IT'S REALLY, KIND OF A, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU LEASE IT FROM THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE CITY, ONE DAY AND LONG-TERM FUTURE DECIDES TO PUT IN A TRAIL, IF WE DO. UM, EVEN IF WE HAD THE FUNDING TODAY TO DO IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD SUPPORT PUTTING IN A TRAIL BACK THERE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT PROPERTY WORKS AND HOW IT WOULD BE, GOING BEHIND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THAT. ALL THAT SAID, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS, I WILL BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT. COUNCIL, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER

WINGET? >> SO, I WANT TO ADDRESS, I'M A BIG FAN OF PRECEDENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN. I SAT ON THAT STRATEGIC PLAN COMMITTEE AND HELPED TO DRAFT THAT PLAN. I DID FIND THE SEGMENT THAT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS REFERENCED AND THAT'S INCREASED OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS OR INCREASED OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS TO USE LAKE RAY HUBBARD FOR A VARIETY OF PURPOSES. THE STRUGGLE ON THAT, IS BASED ON WHAT I SAW THIS PAST WEEK IT IS NOT BEING USED IN A RESPECTFUL WAY OF THE LAND AT ALL. I'M A CAMPER, I LOVE TO CAMP WITH MY FAMILY. AND WHAT I SAW BY THE LAKE DISGUST ME TO NO END BECAUSE IT'S PEOPLE THAT DO NOT CLEAN UP AFTER THEMSELVES, THEY DO NOT TAKE CARE OF THE COMPANY, THEY LEAVE EVERYTHING LIKE FULL BAGS OF TRASH TIED TO A TREE TO STUFF LITTERED ON THE GROUND. IT'S NOT IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OR SIX YEARS, IT'S PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN THE LAST SIX DECADES. THERE ARE TIRES DOWN THERE HALF BURIED IN THE SOIL.

NOT TO MENTION THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF LAKE SHORE THAT WE ARE LOSING. I WOULD ESTIMATE WE'VE LOST JUST THIS YEAR PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A FOOT AND A FOOT AND-A-HALF, MAY BE MORE.

THERE ARE TREES AT A 45-DEGREE ANGLE, READY TO FALL IN THE LAKE, BIG, HEALTHY CEDAR TREES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE SUPPORTING THE LAKE SHORE, BUT THE EROSION IS TAKING THEM AWAY. THEY'RE DISAPPEARING. AS FAR AS THE STRATEGIC PLAN GOES ANOTHER BIG TENANT OF THAT IS SAFETY. AND WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS NOT A VERY SAFE ENVIRONMENT DOWN THERE. ANOTHER SPEAKER SPOKE TO THE PEOPLE BEHIND THIS PROPERTY, WEVE SEEN VIDEOS OF VEHICLES BEHIND THAT PROPERTY THAT ARE JUST LAYING ON THEIR HORN, OUT THERE FLIPPING THEM THE BIRD, ALL KINDS OF BAD BEHAVIOR, THINGS THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE BEHIND YOUR HOME. CERTAINLY I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE THAT BEHIND MY HOME. THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AS A PARK. THE ACCESSIBILITY IS NOT THERE, THE FUNCTIONALITY IS NOT THERE. AND IF IT WERE ME, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I MAY OR MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO, I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING EROSION CONTROL TO A PROPERTY THAT I HAVE NO RIGHTS TO AT ALL. EVEN IF IT WAS A SUBLEASE, LIKE, BUILDING A BOAT DOCK THERE, I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BUILDING EROSION CONTROL ON CITY PROPERTY AND PERHAPS SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD, BEING SUED. I TOTALLY RESPECT THE HOME OWNER'S OPINION ON NOT WANTING TO DO THAT WITHOUT SOME KIND OF BUY IN FROM THE CITY. THIS IS KIND OF A MIDDLE GROUND TO GET BOTH SIDES WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE AND ENABLES US TO STABILIZE THE PROPERTY AND HAVE LONG-TERM PROPERTY FOR THE CITIZENS AND ALSO SECURING THE LAND TO BE A PARK AT SOME POINT, IF WE MAKE IT TO THAT POINT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH? >> JEFF, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID, IT'S COMPLETELY DEPLORABLE WHAT'S GOING ON THERE, AND UNACCEPTABLE. AND MY QUESTION IS, AND IF YOU COULD ANSWER THIS FOR ME, THEN I'LL BE IN SUPPORT

[00:50:04]

OF THIS. BY APPROVING THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, HOW DOES THAT

FIX THAT? >> IT WOULD RETURN SOME OF THE

CONTROL BACK TO THE HOMEOWNERS. >> SO, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THAT CONTROL, CURRENTLY, RIGHT? AT LEAST THAT'S THE PERCEPTION, AND MAY BE THAT'S WHERE THE GAP IS IN THE CONVERSATION THAT HASN'T HAPPENED. IT'S MY PERCEPTION THAT IT'S THEIR PERCEPTION THEY HAVE NO CONTROL TO DO THOSE THINGS. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT, THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES THAT SIT ON THIS LAND IN SOME CASES ARE STRIPPED. SOME VERY NARROW STRIPS THAT EXTEND BASICALLY FROM CHIESA BACK TO WHERE THE LAKE IS AND THERE'S OTHER AREAS MUCH LARGER LIKE CANTBURY COVE AND WE TALK ABOUT WANTING A PARK THERE EVENTUALLY, BUT, THAT WHOLE STRETCH, SOME IS MORE UNKEPT THAN OTHERS. I DON'T KNOW IF

THAT HELPS YOU. >> NO. BECAUSE, I'M TELLING YOU, AND I'M TELLING THEM, THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST TOLD THEM THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT TO GO AND DO THAT TYPE OF CLEANUP IF IT'S THIS COUNSEL'S SENTIMENT THAT THAT'S NEVER GOING TO BE A PARK, THEN, LET'S HAVE A WORK SESSION TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER WE WANT TO PUT THAT ON A REFERENDUM AND MAKE THAT LEASABLE SPACE. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO AND DO THE CLEAN UPTHEY NEED DO. BY PASSING THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, ALL WE'RE DOING IS SETTING THE

CITY UP FOR POTENTIAL ISSUES. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS:

COUNCILMEMBER SHINDER? >> WETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR US TO EXPECT THEM TO SPEND, MY NEIGHBOR JUST BUILT AN EROSION WALL THAT COSTS $20,000, WE EXPECT THEM TO DO THAT WITHOUT THEM GETTING ANYTHING ELSE IN RETURN? I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR.

>> . >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: CITY

MANAGER? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, UM. IT'S BEEN SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES TONIGHT THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE DE-PARKING. I WANT TO REMIND COUNCIL WE HAD THAT PREVIOUS CONVERSATION IT DOES NOT REQUIRE, THERE'S NOT AN ELECTION OF THE PUBLIC, IT'S NOT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DE-PARKED TO MAKE IT A PERMANENT SOLUTION. WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS REGARDING THAT. AND THERE WOULD BE STEPS TO, TO, TAKE IT OR, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT OUT OF CIRCULATION, SO TO SPEAK, BUT, NOT AN ELECTION TO DE-PARK IT. I WANT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE

IT'S BEEN SAID SEVERAL TIMES. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS:

COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON? >> I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO NOW.

CERTAINLY, THEY CAN CLEAN IT UP, AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OF THAT, I BELIEVE IT'S A MATTER OF THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL, I BELIEVE THEIR PROPERTY DOES NOT GO ALL THE WAY FROM THEIR BACKYARD DOWN TO THE SHORELINE.

IF I'M WRONG, CORRECT ME THERE. BUT, THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO CONTROL ANYTHING THEY CAN'T EVEN PUT UP NO-TRESPASSING SIGNS, IT'S A MATTER OF SECURITY DOWN THERE AND THEIR HANDS ARE TIED, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO, THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR BETTER CONTROL AND SECURITY OVER THE SPACE BETWEEN WHERE THEY'RE PROPERTY ENDS AND IT GOES TO THE SHORELINE WITH ALL THE BAD ACTIVITY WITH THE FIRES AND THE HANDGUNS GOING OFF AT NIGHT.

THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SOME KIND OF SECURITY CONTROL AND I BELIEVE HAVING THE ABILITY TO LEASE THAT DOWN THERE WOULD GIVE THEM SOME ABILITY TO EXTEND NO-TRESPASSING SIGNS OR GIVE THEM BETTER CONTROL OVER WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER RIGHT NOW NO-MAN'S

LAND. >> .

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, HAVE WE BEAT THIS HORSE TO DEATH ENOUGH? ALL RIGHT. STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT HERE? ALL RIGHT. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

COUNCILMEMBER SHINDER? >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE NORTHERN PORTION OF LAKESIDE PARK NORTH WITHIN THE TAKE AREA AS LEASABLE PROPERTY PROVIDING THAT THE SUBLEASES OF THE AREA ARE SUBJECT TO RETAKE BY THE CITY O ROWLETT AT SUCH TIMES AS PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAKESIDE NORTH ARE ESTABLISHED AND FUNDING HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE. > MAYOR MARGOLIS:

COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON? >> SECOND.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE HAVE A MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER, A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. WE DO HAVE DISCUSSION.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POINT AND CLARIFY THAT THAT DOES ADD LANGUAGE TO THE ORDINANCE FOR THE RESOLUTION BASED ON WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED BY STAFF. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THAT.

>> THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. I'M GOING TO SIMPLY

[00:55:01]

ADD THE WORD "FUNDED" IN THE SIXTH LINE OF SECTION TWO OF THE DRAFTED RESOLUTION. AND I'VE DONE IT AND I'LL SEND IT IN TO SUBMIT IT. IT'S NOT A DIFFERENT SECTION, IT'S GOING TO SAY THAT THE CITY CAN REVOKE THE SUBLEASE AT THE CITY'S SOLE DISCRETION IN THE EVENT THAT PLANS TO DEVELOP LAKESIDE PARK NORTH ARE ESTABLISHED, FUNDED, AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S HOW THE MOTION WILL READ. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS:

COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH? >> I WANT TO MAKE A POINT, I DON'T EXPECT THEM DO ANYTHING. AND I DON'T EXPECT THEM TO DO ANYTHING IF THEY HAVE THIS LEASE AGREEMENT. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT FROM THEM IS THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THEM AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN A PARK OR A TRAIL, OR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, WHICH WILL CAUSE ISSUES IN THE FUTURE, BY PASSING IT, IT IS WHAT IT IS, I'M SAYING, IT'S NOT GOING TO FIX ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU ALL JUST TALKED ABOUT. IT'S NOT. THE ONLY WAY THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS IF WE GET IN THERE AND THE CITY PUTS A BUNCH OF MONEY INTO IT AND WE START TO CONTROL IT AND WE GO IN THERE AND DO A BUNCH OF THAT WORK, AND I DON'T CARE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE PUTTING ANY BUDGET MONEY IN

RIGHT NOW. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. CALL THE VOTE.

[8A. Consider action to approve an ordinance approving the Final Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Project and Finance Plan for Reinvestment Zone Number Four, City of Rowlett, Texas, and providing an effective date.]

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM PASSES 5-2.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT ITEM IS, UM, ITEM 8 A, CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE APPROVALING THE FINAL TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN FOR REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER FOUR CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. LIBBY TUCKER.

>> THE SAME PRESENTATION DURING THE BOARD MEETING, BUT, FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT, I'LL GO THROUGH IT AGAIN. THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS HERE, OUR CONSULTANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. SO, THIS IS TO, UM, DISCUSS AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN THAT WOULD SET FORTH TIRZ NUMBER FOUR IN THE NORTH SHORE DISTRICT. SO, AS A BACKGROUND OF INFORMATION, THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED NOVEMBER 15TH, THAT ACTUALLY CREATED THE DISTRICT.

TAT'S BEEN DONE. AND, ESTABLISHED THE TIRZ BOARD WHICH YOU MET EARLIER AND SET FORTH THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD AND THE THE COUNCIL ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN SEPTEMBER ON THE 20TH, THAT SET FORTH PARAMETERS WHICH WILL BE IN THE DEVELOPMENTAL ADPREEMENT THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT AND THIS PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 15TH, IT'S A STEP IN THE PROCESS, WE BRING YOU THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, WE HAVE TIME FOR ANY ADJUSTMENTS AND BRING BACK THE FINAL PLAN WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE NOW. SO, THE PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN OUTLINES THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT, IT CALLS OUT THE SPECIFIC PARCELS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE ZONE AND SET FORTH THE PROJECT COST FUNDED BY THE TIRZ, BY JACKSON SHAW AND THE CITY CAME UP WITH A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WE THINK, INFRASTRUCTURE WISE, ARE NEEDED IN THAT AREA. IT SETS FORTH YOU THE TIRZ IS FUNDED AND PROVIDES A FEES ABILITY STUDY OF WHAT THE TIRZ WILL GENERATE OVER THE 30-YEAR LIFE. AS A REMINDER, IT IS A LIVING DOCUMENT, SO, AS WE HAVE OTHER DEVELOPERS COME IN OR PROJECTS COME IN THAT NEED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE, WE CAN REVISE THE PROJECT PLAN TO INCLUDE THOSE PROJECTS AS WELL. SO, THE DETAILS OF THE PLAN SET FORTH AT 50% OF THE INCREMENT PROPERTY TAXES WILL BE USED TO ASSIST WITH INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND JACKSON SHAW WILL BENEFIT BY RECEIVING 50% OF THE INCREMENT GENERATED BY THEIR PROJECT AND 40% OF WHAT'S GENERATED IN THE REST OF NORTH SHORE AND THE CAP ON THEIR PROJECT SUNSHINE $15,153,000 AND IS FOR A PERIOD OF 22 YEARS. THAT'S WHAT WE PROJECT WOULD BE THE LONGEST TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET TO THAT AMOUNT, ALTHOUGH, I'M OPTIMISTIC AND I THINK IT WILL HAPPEN MORE QUICKLY. AND, THE CITY HAS IDENTIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AS WELL IN THE AMOUNT OF $126.7 MILLION.

SO, A LOT IT HAVE PROJECTS THAT WE THINK NEEDS THERE AS WELL,

[01:00:07]

PRIMARILY IN THE WATER SYSTEMS AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS. AND THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE TIRZ WAS 30 YEARS AND WE ANTICIPATE OTHER PROJECT COSTS COMING IN TO BE $142.3 MILLION. SO, WE THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN IMTATIS PROJECT. IT'S THE ENTIRE NORTH SHORE DISTRICT, OVER 1600 ACRES, AND THE CHANGES SINCE THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, I WANTED TO POINT THOSE OUT. SO, THE CITY HAS IDENTIFIED AND RECEIVED NUMBERS IN A LITTLE LATE FROM OUR ENGINEERING FIRM THAT WE CONTRACT WITH FOR ADDITIONAL WATER LINES, SO, THOSE ARE THE THREE 30-INCH, 16-INCH WATER COST AT THE BOTTOM, A TOTAL OF $9.2 MILLION.

THE ADMINISTRATE TOUGHER COSTS WILL BE REIMBURSED FIRST TO THE CITY. SO, COST FOR CONSULTANTS WE HAVE THE FIRM UNICAP THAT MANAGES ALL THE MONEYS AND THAT WILL COME OFF THE TOP BEFORE ANY DEVELOPERS RECEIVE REBATES. SO, THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OR THE PROJECTIONS THAT THE CONSULTANT THINKS WILL BE GENERATED, THE 50% INCREMENT WILL FUND $136.1 MILLION OVER THE RIFE AND 50% OF THAT THEN COMES TO THE PROJECT FUND BUT THE 50% COMES TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND. SO, A REVENUE GENERATOR AS WELL FOR ALL THE OTHER SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE. IT ESTABLISHES THIS YEAR AS THE BASE YEAR, SO, THAT BASE NUMBER OF WHAT TAXES ARE BEING ASSESSED IS $290 MILLION. AND, UM, WE PROJECT THAT $1.4 BILLION WILL BE ADDED IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. SO, WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING TONIGHT IS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN FOR TIRZ NUMBER 4.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH? >> I'LL MAKE A ORDINANCE TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE FINAL TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT AND PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> IS IT ALL RIGHT. CALL THE VOTE.

[8B. Consider action to approve a resolution to authorize and approve an agreement between the City of Rowlett, Texas, the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number 4 Board of Directors, and Jackson Shaw Company relating to the segregation of TIRZ Funds into a separate subaccount, limiting TIRZ funding for approved and eligible project costs to specific amounts in accordance with the Final Project and Finance Plan, and providing for grants and roadway impact fee waivers, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement on the City’s behalf.]

>> THAT TESTIMONY PASSES 6-1. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 8 B, CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER 4 AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND JACKSON SHAW COMPANY RELATING TO THE SEGREGATION OF TIRZ FUNDS INTO A SEPARATE SUBACCOUNT LIMITING TIRZ FUNDING FOR APPROVALED ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS TO SPECIFIC AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN, AND PROVIDING FOR THE GRANTS AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEE WAIVERS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT OF THE CITY'S

BEHALF. >> THESE TIRZ ARE WHAT YOU APPROVED WITH THE MOU ENTERED INTO ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, NOTHING HAS BEEN MODIFIED OR CHANGED, AS FAR AS THAT GOES, IT OUTLINES THE COST EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE TIRZ FUND THAT WE REVIEWED PREVIOUSLY AND ALLOWS US UNDER CHAPTER 380 THAT WE COULD EXTEND GRANTS THAT WE COMMIT TO FOR THE RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION, A PORTION OF THAT, AND ALSO ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS ROADWAY IMPACT FEE WAIVERS BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE MERRICK ROAD INTERCONNECTER.

SO, TO OUTLINE SOME OF THOSE WITHIN THE TIRZ AGREEMENT, SO, IT OUTLINES THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT THAT WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 1.6 MILLION SQUARE FEET TO BE DONE IN TWO PHASES, IT PROVIDES FOR DELAYS IN THAT, IT ONLY GIVES THEM ONE YEAR, SO, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS WITH THE ECONOMY, OR, ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, THAT THEY WOULD NEED ON EXTENSION BEYOND ONE YEAR FROM WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THOSE PROJECTS DONE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND ASK FOR AN

[01:05:03]

EXTENSION, SO, YOU'LL BE MADE AWARE OF THAT. IT OUTLINES TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS $1.65 MILLION. AND THEY WILL ASSIST WITH MARKETING THE REMAINDER OF THE NORTH SHORE DISTRICT WHICH I TOLD YOU EARLIER THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. THEY'VE PROVIDED MARKETING BOARDS FOR THEIR PROJECT WITH YOU ALSO, THEY'RE TALKING, I'M SURE WITH OTHER DEVELOPERS, IT'S HAPPENING AND CREATING A LOT OF INTEREST WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS IN THE AGREEMENT SETS FORTH THE PROCEDURES FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND HOW THAT HAPPENS AND IT WILL OCCUR IN A TIMELY MANNER THAT THE CITY SEEKS PARTICIPATION FROM DALLAS COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TIRZ WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY SPEED UP THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE COLLECTED. IF THEY PARTICIPATE IN THAT AS WELL. AND THEN, UM, IT SAYS THAT WE WILL WAVE THOSE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES. SO, AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT THE PROJECT COSTS ARE FOR WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO AS TEAR ONE WHICH ARE THE JACKSON SHAW PROJECTS. SO, THE ROAD EXTENSION, THE WATER LINE, THE STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT THAT INCLUDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRIC AND THE RETAINING WALL PROJECT. SO, A TOTAL OF $15,153,000. AND JUST TO SHOW YOU THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT, AGAIN, THE FIRST PHASE IS WHAT IS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OR OUTLINES IN RED ON THE RIGHT, SO, THEY'RE COMMITTING TO $100 MILLION INVESTMENT IN THAT FIRST PHASE, CONSTRUCTION OF 1 MILLION SQUARE FEET AT LEAST AND TO BE DONE WITH THAT BY 12-31-26. PHASE TWO CALLS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTHERN PART AND THE LARGER ON ONE OF THE LARGER BUILDINGS THERE THAT THEY PLANNED FOR, INVESTMENT OF $65 MILLION AND CONSTRUCTION OF 620,000 SQUARE FEET BY 2027. SO, AGAIN, THE PHASING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS PHASE ONE. SO WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TIRZ AGREEMENT WITH JACKSON SHAW.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM

WINGET? >> AS A MATTER OF PROCESS, IS THIS EFFECTIVELY, THE LAST BIG STEP THAT THE CITY HAS TO MAKE AT THIS POINT BEFORE THINGS ARE OFF AND RUNNING?

>> IT IS THE LAST THING, YES. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: FEELS LIKE IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ALL RIGHT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON?

>> ALL RIGHT. SO, THIS IS A LONG ONE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT BOARD OF DIRECTOR AND JACKSON SAW LIMITING THE TIRZ FUNDING TO APPROVE ELIGIBLE COST TO SPECIFIC AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE FINAL PROJECT AND PLANS IN THE ROADWAY AND IMPACT FEE WAIVERS AND AUTHORIZING THE AGREEMENT ON THE

CITY'S BEHALF. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DO WE HAVE A

SECOND? >> OH, SORRY. YES, WE DO.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GALUARDI? >> SECOND THAT LONG MOTION.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A LONG MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GALUARDI. ANY DISCUSSION? WE HAVE DISCUSSION BY DEPUTY MAYOR

PRO TEM SHINDER. >> I JUST DON'T LIKE TO VOTE AND ESPECIALLY TO VOTE NO WITHOUT STATING MY REASONS WHY.

I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT'S REASONS, WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS WORK SESSIONS ON THIS ITEM AND I'VE MADE MY POSITION CLEAR YOU COULD VIEW THE VIDEOS OF THOSE MEETINGS IF YOU WANT THE DETAILS. BRIEFLY, THAT POSITION HASN'T CHANGED, I'M NOT OPPOSED OF THE CONCEPT OF A TIRZ IN SOME SITUATIONS. AND THE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE TONIGHT. I DON'T DISPUTE THAT THIS PARTICULAR TIRZ MAY HAVE BENEFITS TO THE CITY IF THE DEVELOPMENT PANS OUT THE WAY IT'S BEING PRESENTED.

THE FUTURE'S HARD TO PREDICT AND I HOPE THAT MY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ARE WRONG AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TURNS OUT TO BE A RESOUND RESOUNDING SUCCESS. AFTER MANY HOURS OF CONSIDERATION, I PERSONALLY, CAN'T VOTE FOR IT.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BIG SHOCK TO ANYBODY.

>> . >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. CALL THE VOTE.

[01:10:02]

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND THAT ITEM PASSES 6-1.

>> AND THE LAST BUT NOT LEAST, BIG STEP FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT

[8C. Consider action to approve a resolution finding that annexation of the City of Rowlett into the North Texas Municipal Water District to be in the best interest of the City of Rowlett and of the District and petitioning the North Texas Municipal Water District to annex the City.]

TONIGHT, Y'ALL. OUR NEXT ITEM IS 8C, CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT ANNEXATION OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT INTO THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER CRICKET DISTRICT TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND OF THE DISTRICT AND PETITIONERING THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT TO ANNEX THE CITY. CITY MANAGER?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT THIS ITEM TONIGHT. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME IN COMING, THIS IS, UM, A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION, FILING A PETITION FOR MEMBERSHIP WITH THE KNOT TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. THE WATER DISTRICT WAS CREATED IN 1954 WITH 10 ORIGINAL CITIES SERVING 32,000 CUSTOMERS. THREE OTHER CITIES JOINED OVER THE YEARS, RICHARDSON IN 1973, ALLEN IN '88 AND FRISCO IN 2001. THE DISTRICT NOW SERVICES OVER 2 MILLION CUSTOMERS AND 13 MEMBER CITIES, THERE ARE 14 CUSTOMER CITIES AND 16 UTILITY DISTRICTS. ROWLETT JOINED IN 1965, THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, UM, AND THEN, WE ARE ALMOST AT THE END OF OUR CURRENT 30-YEAR AGREEMENT. THE SECOND AGREEMENT, WE ARE THE LARGEST CUSTOMER CITY, UM, SERVING NEARLY 70,000 RESIDENTS AND THE CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRES IN MAY OF 2024, WHICH IS COMING UP QUICK. YOU COULD SEE FROM THE MAPS HERE, THE DISTRICT ON THE LEFT ARE THE MEMBER CITIES, SOME CITIES AS SMALL AS PRESTON AND FARMERSVILLE. AND SOME CITIES AS LARGE AS GARLAND AND PLANO. IT'S REFERRED TO AS CUSTOMER CITIES THAT'S ARE MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY NON-MEMBER ENTITY WHOLE SELLERS. WE ARE A WHOLE SELLER, SO, PRETTY MUCH ALL THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND WE SELL THAT WATER AT RETAIL TO THE CUSTOMERS. SO, THE DISTRICT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED TO PROVIDE PRIMARILY, WATER, AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT 1954, THAT WAS IN THE MID-1950S, WAS THE WORST FIVE-YEAR DROUGHT AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY, WHEN THIS WAS CREATED. WE'VE SINCE THEN HAD A PRETTY SEVERE, FOUR OR FIVE YEAR DROUGHT AS WELL, NOT TOO LONG AGO. WE'RE NOT A MEMBER CITY. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THAT WE CONTRACT WITH THE DISTRICT WE PAY A FEE TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, BUT, WE HAVE NO VOTE. WE HAVE NO VOICE. UM, AND, THAT'S REALLY WHAT MEMBERSHIP IS ALL ABOUT. IN TERMS OF FACTS, WE ARE THE LARGEST CUSTOMER WHOLESELLER AND IF WE WERE A MEMBER, WE WOULD BE THE 8TH LARGEST ENTITY ON THE BOARD, 8TH LARGEST MEMBER OUT OF THE 13. SO, ALMOST, TO THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK. WE'VE LONGED DESIRED TO BE A MEMBER. WE STARTED DISCUSSING THIS MAY BE, I THINK IT WAS DURING THE FOUR OR FIVE YEAR DROUGHT SO IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS NOW. WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS. THERE'S BEEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES, DIFFERENT OBSTACLES WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP, ONE OF THOSE WAS LITIGATION THAT, UM, THE MEMBER CITIES WERE IN DISPUTE WITH EACH OTHER SO, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THERE WERE ARGUMENTS ON WHY THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO CONSIDER NEW MEMBERS AT THAT TIME. AS A MEMBER, ROWLETT WOULD HAVE A VOICE IN DECISIONS THAT HAVE LONG IMPACTED THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES. A LOT OF OUR COCERNS ORIGINALLY STEM FROM THE MANDATORY TAKE OF PAY PROSIGNIFICANTS. AND JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S SAKE, THAT IS A